Fourteen petitions have reportedly been filed against amendments to Sri Lanka’s anti-corruption law. Fighting corruption is unquestionably in the public interest. The means used to fight it must nevertheless remain within the Constitution.
Sri Lanka’s latest attempt to amend its anti-corruption regime has itself arrived before the Supreme Court, with 14 petitions reportedly challenging the constitutionality of the proposed Anti-Corruption Amendment Bill.
The hearings commenced yesterday before a three-member bench comprising Justices Shiran Gunaratne, Mahinda Samayawardhena and Sampath Wijeratne.
Submit Your Press Release
Get your company news, announcements, launches, appointments and events in front of a wider audience.
The development deserves attention beyond the inevitable legal arguments surrounding individual clauses of the Bill.
Sri Lanka needs an effective anti-corruption framework. Few propositions in contemporary Sri Lankan politics command broader public agreement.
Years of allegations involving procurement, public property, political influence and the misuse of State resources have contributed substantially to the collapse of public confidence in institutions. The demand that wrongdoing be investigated and offenders prosecuted is therefore neither partisan nor controversial.
But precisely because anti-corruption legislation confers significant investigative and prosecutorial power, Parliament has a corresponding responsibility to ensure that those powers remain constitutionally sound.
Transparency International Sri Lanka is among those challenging the proposed amendments.
The Supreme Court’s task is not to decide whether corruption should be fought. That question was settled long ago by the public interest.
Its task is to determine whether the particular legislative machinery Parliament proposes is compatible with the Constitution and, where applicable, whether any provisions require amendment, a special parliamentary majority or approval by the People.
There is an important distinction here.
Strong law is not necessarily law giving the State the greatest possible power. Strong law is legislation capable of surviving constitutional scrutiny, being applied consistently and ultimately producing prosecutions and convictions which themselves withstand judicial examination.
Sri Lanka has seen enough investigations announced with considerable noise only for cases to become bogged down years later in procedural and evidential disputes.
An anti-corruption system should therefore be judged not by the number of politicians summoned before investigators or the volume of headlines produced, but by something much less theatrical: lawful investigations, properly gathered evidence, independent prosecutions and sustainable judicial outcomes.
That standard must apply regardless of who occupies Government and regardless of whose name appears on the charge sheet.
The present administration came to office carrying a particularly powerful mandate to confront corruption. That mandate gives it political authority to act.
It does not give any Government authority to act outside constitutional limits.
Those two propositions are not contradictory. They are what the rule of law is supposed to mean.
Be that as it may.
